Re: [GENERAL] MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled

Thank you for your help Alvaro - we really appreciate it. The error in fact stopped this morning - we took downtime and ran a vacuum across all of our tables, and saw increased auto vacuum activity as well. It looks like it bumped up the oldest multitxid to something other than 1 now: postgres@s

Re: [GENERAL] MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled

/16, 3:30 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: >AnandKumar, Karthik wrote: >> root@site-db01a:/var/lib/pgsql/cmates/data # ls pg_multixact/members >> 0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 000A 000B 000C >> 000D 000E 000F 0010 0011 0012 001

Re: [GENERAL] MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled

age checksum version: 0 On 10/13/16, 5:28 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote: >AnandKumar, Karthik wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We run postgres 9.4.5. >> >> Starting this morning, we started seeing messages like the below: >> Oct 12 14:07:15 site-db01a postgr

[GENERAL] MultiXact member wraparound protections are disabled

. What does it mean that "oldest checkpointed MultiXact does not exist on disk”? Would we lose data if we did have to wrap around? Is this telling us we’re not vacuuming effectively enough? Thanks, Karthik

[GENERAL] Online backup of PostgreSQL data.

ncept like using pg_basebackup (?) to achieve the same. (In our case, we do not need replication as a feature to do in different PC). It is sufficient for us to take the backup in the same PC. Any suggestions / help is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance! With best regards, Karthik R

[GENERAL] live and dead tuples are zero on slave running on tmpfs

configured to a tmpfs mounted store. Would this cause it to have zero live & dead tuples ? postgres version on master and slave: PostgreSQL 9.4.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) 4.8.2, 64-bit -- Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-gen

[GENERAL] Question on session_replication_role

Our set up: * Db version: postgres 9.3.4 * OS: CentOS 5.6 * kernel Version - Linux 2.6.18-238.19.1.el5 #1 SMP Fri Jul 15 07:31:24 EDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux * memory - 256 GB * We have slony replicating to this DB from the primary server *

[GENERAL] vacuum full post 9.0 - reindex needed?

a full vacuum? We’ve seen from practice that indexes do work after vacuum fulls, but – will a reindex make them more optimal? ~Karthik

[GENERAL] Upgrade to 9.3 - performance issue ?

Some details: OS: CentOS 6.2 Kernel: 2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 Help here is appreciated. Thanks in advance, - Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Upgrade to 9.3

Hello, We are planning to upgrade Postgres from 9.0 to 9.3. Was wondering if there are any serious changes that I have to look out for (syntax/datatypes changes) so that my code does not break. Thanks in advance. - Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general

Re: [GENERAL] Repeated semop calls

>Are there a lot of tuples in the table that have been inserted or updated by still-open transactions? Yes, there are likely to be inserts. That table is a log capture table used by our replication software, so essentially every update/delete/insert will have a record inserted into the table. It

Re: [GENERAL] Repeated semop calls

>1. disabling zone_reclaim (echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode) > 2. disabling transparent hugepage support - this has various names on > different kernel/distributions, but "find /sys | grep -i > transparent.*hugepage.*enable" will find it, and then just echo never there. Thank you, yes,

Re: [GENERAL] DATA corruption after promoting slave to master

your data and index inconsistencies if you're willing to wait. Thanks a lot Shaun. Appreciate the help. - Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Repeated semop calls

semaphore, and get its id: root@site-db01a:~ # ipcs -c -s | grep 21561422 21561422 600postgres postgres postgres postgres But I’m not sure where to go next. Is there a resource contention that this is indicating, and if so, any way to tell what the contention is on? ~Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] DATA corruption after promoting slave to master

more ? TIA, - Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] DATA corruption after promoting slave to master

server up. We are trying to play the difference in data by checking the log files(statement logs). You think there is any other easy alternatives ? Thanks in advance, - Karthik On Thursday 26 June 2014 01:09 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote: On 06/25/2014 06:29 AM, Karthik Iyer wrote: [2] We also have a

[GENERAL] DATA corruption after promoting slave to master

tries. 2. there are duplicate values for primary keys Postgres version that we use: 9.0.13 Postgres conf : http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=B0diaitG Any help here is appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Karthik Iyer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make ch

Re: [GENERAL] Oracle to PostgreSQL replication

We use symmetricDS for this. Works pretty well. http://www.symmetricds.org/ From: Serge Fonville mailto:serge.fonvi...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 2:49 AM To: Geoff Montee mailto:geoff.mon...@gmail.com>> Cc: Sameer Kumar mailto:sameer.ku...@ashnik.com>>, PostgreSQL General Discu

Re: [GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

size: 393215 MB node 1 free: 319 MB node distances: node 0 1 0: 10 20 1: 20 10 root@site-db01b:~ # cat /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode 0 Thanks, Karthik On 3/26/14 1:54 PM, "Bruce Momjian" wrote: >On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 08:22:01PM +, Anand Kumar,

Re: [GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 (Note the change in the Node 0 line, 8k blocks went up from 0 to 5495) Anyone have any idea why memory was so fragmented, and what causes memory to be defragged? Is it something postgres does? Are there any kernel specific settings that control it? Thanks, K

Re: [GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

blogspot.com/2012/06/perf-good-bad-ugly.html - will see what that has to show. Thanks, Karthik On 3/11/14 1:06 PM, "John R Pierce" wrote: >On 3/11/2014 10:20 AM, Anand Kumar, Karthik wrote: >> We typically see about 500-700 active queries at a time > >if these are prima

Re: [GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

down our applications (they maintain persistent connections once established, so any connection overhead slows them down), and with transaction level pooling, simply did not work. Thanks, Karthik From: Jeff Janes mailto:jeff.ja...@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:23 AM To: "

Re: [GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

ed on recommendations from posrgtes user groups, and via testing with setting it up and running explain analyze on queries. None of the settings have changed when this problem began. Thanks, Karthik From: Venkata Balaji Nagothi mailto:vbn...@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:35 PM To: &

[GENERAL] Increase in max_connections

hether thats because of slow down, or because of increase in traffic). Working on getting the information, will update with that information as soon as we have it. I thought I'd send a post out to the group before then, to see if anyone has run into anything similar. Thanks, Karth

[GENERAL] PQunescapebytea not reverse of PQescapebytea?

pebytea', base64 encode ciphertext before inserting. Not sure how well this would work. 3. Use 'text' data type for the column instead of 'bytea'. Has anyone faced this scenario before? Thanks- Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] timezone change after upgrade from postgres 9.1 to 9.3?

Thank you. Its a 'yes' on 2 there. I did copy the config file from the 9.1 installation. Thank you for mentioning that, will fix it. Thanks, Karthik On 1/30/14 4:17 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote: >Adrian Klaver writes: >> On 01/30/2014 03:17 PM, Anand Kumar, Karthik wr

[GENERAL] timezone change after upgrade from postgres 9.1 to 9.3?

27;s profile is changing the timezone at startup. The postgres start up scripts aren't setting the timezone either, from what I can see. Thanks, Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] Sudden slow down and spike in system CPU causes max_connections to get exhausted

Thanks all for your suggestions. Looks like disabling transparent huge pages fixed this issue for us. We haven't had it occur in two days now after the change. Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [GENERAL] Sudden slow down and spike in system CPU causes max_connections to get exhausted

that. Thats longer term though and I'm hoping to be able to resolve this issue before we get there. We'll try reducing the number of backends, and disable transparent huge pages. I'll update the thread with our results. Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing

[GENERAL] Sudden slow down and spike in system CPU causes max_connections to get exhausted

try and mitigate the problem, but that still doesn't address the root cause. Anyone have any tips for why this might be occurring? Thanks, Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] Multi Master Replication

ch. Its in active development and we've found the community forums to be pretty helpful when we run into undocumented bugs. Let me know if you need help with it. Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your sub

Re: [GENERAL] index and table corruption

a full pg_dump of the database (without output >>>to /dev/null) and it completes okay. >>> And then a few hours later the issue shows up again >>> We run an ext3 filesystem with journaling=ordered, and kernel 2.6.18 >>> Currently testing an upgrade to the kerne

Re: [GENERAL] Best way to sync possibly corrupted data?

to a different storage area yet, but its something we are working on, thank you Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] Best way to sync possibly corrupted data?

orrupt data? I would think a filesystem based copy (rsync, etc) should be avoided, and a pg_dump with a new initdb is best? Thanks, Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] index and table corruption

pshot to an alternate SAN, and ran a script to update every row of every table, and do a full vacuum and reindex of every table, and there were no error messages about bad blocks. Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes t

Re: [GENERAL] index and table corruption

ke wal logs are probably not being flushed to disk as expected. Will update once we get onto the new h/w to see if that fixes it. Thanks, Karthik -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[GENERAL] index and table corruption

| fsync work_mem | 8MB (47 rows) Any help would be most appreciated! Thanks, Karthik Thanks, Karthik

[GENERAL] MKDIR_P@: Command not found error in regression test

gsql/pgsql/src/test/regress' make[1]: MKDIR_P@: Command not found make[1]: *** [installdirs-local] Error 127 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/user/pgsql/pgsql/src' make: *** [install-src-recurse] Error 2 make: Leaving directory `/home/user/pgsql/pgsql' Any clues on what's wrong?? It's very unlikely that any of my code changes are causing this. Thanks Karthik

Re: [GENERAL] Is there a way to start postgresql v907 as non daemon process

my problem is solved. Trying to train my watch dog to look into postmaster.pid is also good idea but I do not want to work on that as it is working fine. Regards Karthik On 5/25/12 1:50 PM, "Albe Laurenz" wrote: >Karthik wrote: >> I have observed by default posgresql 8.x onwards

[GENERAL] Is there a way to start postgresql v907 as non daemon process

I have observed by default posgresql 8.x onwards starts as daemon process. Is there a way to avoid it. I want it to run as normal process. The parent of the server process should be the process that starts the server instead of being PID 1 ( init ). Till 7.4.2 ( Which was the older version used by

[GENERAL] could not open relation:no such file or directory

hello, my name is karthik . i facing a problem when trying to select values from a table in postgresql. when i execute a query like "select title from itemsbytitle;" i get error as Error:Could not open relation "itemsbytitle". no such file or directory.